Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: 1972 Legnano in the news
Date: 14 Nov 2024 18:08:03 GMT
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <lpmsk3F8hv6U2@mid.individual.net>
References: <vgtpp1$15hns$2@dont-email.me>
 <87v7wsunz2.fsf@mothra.home>
 <vh12v7$1sa3p$6@dont-email.me>
 <93p8jjl43oufp7l30ohlubr3likqlbbekl@4ax.com>
 <n1s8jjd3b2jjdk8nj82vf5s5aucecfbbut@4ax.com>
 <vh2fng$28nrv$1@dont-email.me>
 <ckh9jjde8aaeh2vloenunmqb34405iujd8@4ax.com>
 <vh2j4e$29d5i$1@dont-email.me>
 <vh2shc$2bcig$1@dont-email.me>
 <r2u9jj972mdjhf9of0l7tf6jiob7fo8lt6@4ax.com>
 <vh30ig$2bcig$8@dont-email.me>
 <b8vajjhuok8ld44dhiie84dk246s3ge871@4ax.com>
 <vh402k$2l2qc$6@dont-email.me>
 <kicbjjdmsa9q0la7b9s4e5s88ujgd5kfp8@4ax.com>
 <vh5644$2sh34$2@dont-email.me>
 <vh56or$2sgvi$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net pK5jJsHtXT27XYcVQ5hZVQsZUU1B+cY7VLJbbI/pmI7Tf2iqrV
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OSb2H5auXCvq+KqeLwDU5LdtGH0= sha1:ExdkyKxneUaSZZsr4oGptOq9p/8= sha256:xwqwjPzKYFSgIkPqz/7HLrSBDzIUXtFGZ12w5vs6UFk=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Bytes: 6965

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 11/14/2024 9:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 11/14/2024 3:28 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 23:58:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 11/13/2024 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:01:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> BTW, the last such crash was less than two weeks ago. 
>>>>> The guy in
>>>>>> question moved to the center of the trail to avoid a 
>>>>>> thick coating of
>>>>>> leaves. But in the center were some chunks of broken 
>>>>>> tree branches, over
>>>>>> an inch thick. He hit those and went down, breaking 
>>>>>> several ribs.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Lets see... a guy is riding on a bike path and comes 
>>>>> upon an
>>>>> obstruction and assumes that he can ride over the 
>>>>> obstruction but
>>>>> can't and so falls....and that's the path's fault?
>>>> I think it's more likely that he simply didn't see the 
>>>> chunks of wood.
>>>> He certainly should have been paying attention. He 
>>>> apparently forgot
>>>> that paths get many more leaves, branches and other debris.
>>>> 
>>>> I mentioned here that within the past year, one of my 
>>>> best riding
>>>> friends crashed on a bike path. In his case, tree roots 
>>>> had lifted
>>>> large, sharp ridges across the path surface. He said he 
>>>> was looking at
>>>> something off to the side and didn't see the ridges. I do 
>>>> know of some
>>>> of those ridges on two different bike trails that I 
>>>> occasionally use,
>>>> and I know to watch for them and warn friends when we 
>>>> approach them.
>>>> 
>>>> I also remember two different club members who crashed on 
>>>> a different
>>>> local bike trail due to slippery, slimy mud that had 
>>>> washed across the
>>>> trail where it had a significant side-to-side slope. One 
>>>> of those guys
>>>> suffered a dislocated shoulder in the crash.
>>>> 
>>>> Those things are all hazards that almost never occur on a 
>>>> normal road.
>>>> Car tires tend to remove debris, and road maintenance 
>>>> people don't allow
>>>> things like sharp ridges to remain in the pavement. 
>>>> Motorists would not
>>>> put up with those.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You are simply repeating the same thing, over and over,  an
>>> obstruction on the path and the rider doesn't see it or 
>>> ignores it and
>>> the trail is at fault.
>> 
>> I'm explaining why bike paths have been found to cause more 
>> crashes per kilometer than ordinary roads.
>> 
>> Apparently, for certain people to understand why, it's 
>> necessary to repeat the information.
>> 
>> Not that I mind. Any competent teacher knows that people 
>> seldom really grasp a new fact the first time they hear it.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> People choose what they like, for their own reasons or for 
> no reason.
> 
> As mentioned recently here, separated paths skew to a 
> different demographic than urban commuting in traffic, 
> different than large Sunday morning touring clubs, different 
> than Cat 5 criteriums, etc.  All of those contribute to the 
> overall non-path rate per mile yet each subgroup's rate is 
> different.
> 
That’s not my experience which is mostly london based, and certainly the
South West London main route in via Richmond Park-Putney Bridge passing
Marc Bolan’s death bridge, to Embankment which not segregated until
Westminster but is from there on.

The Embankment in particular is quick,and always was, and was used by fast
roadies riding into the City of London ie the original financial district,
and as such with tended to self selecting folks who would be able to ride
the 15/20 miles in around a hour.

And as any cycle lane or realistically cycleway certainly the Parliament to
Tower, is ie not just a lane.

But it needed to accommodate that the present users would be clocking along
in the 15/25mph range, and needed the cycleway to be as effective or those
users wouldn’t use it.

Ie needed to be able to ride at speed and efficiently so. So needed to be
sufficient wide plus use of filter lanes as most folks are only using the
main junctions so bikes have far less junctions, they will need to stop at.

And the media would have jumped on photos of anyone using the main roadway!
It’s also why it has automated counters to counter as you were bad faith
commentators!

It’s been hugely successful, with a huge increase in numbers and a much
more diverse range of cyclists now, ie not just brave  white middle aged
roadies, but a range of cyclists. Still plenty of the original as well
riding 15/20 miles in is somewhat self selecting.

Obviously lot of urban areas much like for all forms of transportation at
least personal vehicles is more stop start, as well junctions and shops and
so on, which Transport for London says it’s the group growing now, with
more local trips and so on, on various cycle infrastructure. The long
distance commuters are always going to be a fairly narrow group.

> There may be reasons for a higher overall path injury rate 
> per mile which are severe for some subgroups and minimal for 
> others (a recumbent piloted by experienced rider for example 
> would expect fewer injuries from falls than an elderly 
> infrequent cyclist, especially with power assist).
> 
> I don't know that, but it's one  plausible explanation.
> 
As ever Frank has found some that support his position which is why it’s
the same links and often a decade or more ago.

Roger Merriman